Rajammal v. The Administrator

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR Rajammal ... Petitioner -vs1.The Administrator Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Pallavansalai Chennai-600 002 2.The General Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (KUM) Ltd., Karur, Thirumanilayur Karur-639 003 3.N.Tamilmani ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to not to disburse the pensionary benefits and other service benefits of the petitioner's husband N.Tamilmani to him / third respondent.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Abbas Mandhiri For Respondents :

Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel for R1 & R2

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 not to disburse the pensionary benefits and other service benefits payable to the petitioner's husband N.Tamilmani / third respondent herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein is the wife of the third respondent and the relationship between them was strained resulting in initiation of various proceedings before the Family Court / Civil Court for maintenance etc., and appropriate orders were also passed in favour of the petitioner against the third respondent granting maintenance. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the third respondent failed to honour the said orders and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking not to disburse the terminal benefits payable to the third respondent.

3. This Court, after having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also after perusing the entire materials on record, is of the considered view that the writ petition seeking the relief as noted above cannot be entertained, as this Court cannot be converted as an Execution Court or a Family Court for resolving the disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent, who are wife and husband. If at all the petitioner succeeded in the maintenance case against the third respondent, it is for her to initiate execution proceedings or otherwise for execution of the said orders.

But, under no circumstances, the petitioner can be allowed to maintain the present writ petition either for execution of the orders passed in the maintenance case or to resolve the dispute between her and the third respondent. Absolutely, there is no legal or constitutional right of the petitioner that is infringed by the respondents 1 & 2 and the entire grievance of the petitioner is only against the third respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is not maintainable.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to agitate her rights and all other contentions raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceedings. No costs. 04.06.2026 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

krk 04.06.2026